Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Texas Man Kills ex-Wife's Boyfriend

Charges are pending against a man accused of fatally shooting his estranged wife's boyfriend at a gas station in Pasadena Sunday afternoon.

The incident occurred around 1 p.m. at a Valero gas station at Burke and Southmore, where the woman's estranged husband and her boyfriend became involved in a confrontation, said Pasadena Police Department spokesman Vance Mitchell, adding that the nature of the dispute is unknown.

At some point during the confrontation, the woman's estranged husband shot and killed her boyfriend before fleeing the scene in his vehicle.

Officers found the suspect's vehicle shortly after the shooting and became involved in a short chase with the man. During the chase, the suspect crashed his vehicle into another car, but kept on driving and was apprehended shortly in a nearby yard.

Since the article leaves so much to the imagination, I guess we'll just have to fill in some of the blanks. But first let's take a moment to enjoy the humor of Police Spokesman Vance Mitchell. He said, "the nature of the dispute is unknown." That's pretty funny, eh?

I'd say our man was a lawful gun owner up until the moment he decided to change sides. Five minutes before that all the other lawful gun owners would have vehemently defended his right to own guns. Five minutes later, they have nothing to do with him.

Why do gun rights people refuse to admit there are many problem cases in their midst? Why has not one pro-gun voice admitted that The Famous 10% theory makes good sense? Is not this story another perfect example of it?

4 comments:

Not one pro-gun voice? I may not be a big player, but I agree that your "10%" has merit. It's precisely the reason I carry (with care and training, of course), because by your numbers roughly 1 in 10 people I see each day might be a "bad apple" of some sort.

"I'd say our man was a lawful gun owner up until the moment he decided to change sides. Five minutes before that all the other lawful gun owners would have vehemently defended his right to own guns. Five minutes later, they have nothing to do with him."

We don't know that he was a lawful gun owner from the article but let's assume he was (since you already did). If so, he is a criminal now and gun owners tend to support law abiding gun owners and not support criminals. People are not born criminals, they have to cross the line some time. Every criminal was a law abiding citizen up until they committed a crime.

Your 10% could have all the merit in the world and the truth is, I believe your theory is sound though I am not convinced of the actual percentage. The problem is, nothing can be done about it unless you have future glasses or a time machine to know who will one day become a criminal. And if you do have those, lets forget this argument and put them to some serious wealth accumulating use!

As for the "criminal" in this case, what do you want to bet he had a protection order against him making him a prohibited person and not a legal gun owner?

No, the cop wasn't kidding. The nature of the dispute is not known, especially for us reading that vague news article, especially if we keep to the hard and fast rule that if you witness a news event in person and then read the news account, you will find at least one glaring error. That rule has not steered me wrong yet.

We don't know whether the husband was a legal gun owner.

We don't know whether the husband or the boyfriend attacked the other.

We don't know whether the husband was attacking the boyfriend or defending himself.

We don't know whether this was a chance meeting or a case of one man deliberately confronting the other.

We don't know whether the boyfriend was armed, or claimed to be armed, or had three friends with him.

We don't know whether one party attempted or threatened to run the other over.